Julian,

I'm not sure how many more times I need to write this: It is fundamentally against my nature to tell anyone what to do, that includes telling people to use LLMs.

It is probably from the same foundational values, that I am against telling people what NOT to do. You of all people probably know this even the best.

You explicitly want a policy that puts judgement on people who use LLMs, and segregates the pure (hand written) from the impure (assisted) people, yet you

claim you want to keep _all_ of them? You must see how qualified segregation tells one group that they are NOT welcome?

> If we don't express a preference for human authorship, we're effectively saying "you have to use LLMs so stay relevant". I think this is very clearly your opinion. It is not mine.

This is NOT my opinion, and I also do NOT think this logical conclusion follows.

Best,

Moritz

On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 at 15:44, Julian Ospald via ghc-devs <ghc-devs@haskell.org> wrote:

> Well, if you want GHC to become a political vehicle for an ideology

Not spelling out values doesn't mean that you don't take sides. Your constant "LLMs are here to stay" and "it's just a tool" is exactly doing that, you are implying that:

- you can't resist, stop resisting
- you have to follow everyone else or you will be left behind
- your value is only your output

It is a mechnical view of open source and collaboration that is focused on the product, not on the culture from which those products arise. My view is different... I think it is the human culture from which those ideas and products originate and Haskell has given a home to many engaged and curious people. We want to keep those people, whether they use LLMs or not.

If we don't express a preference for human authorship, we're effectively saying "you have to use LLMs so stay relevant". I think this is very clearly your opinion. It is not mine.
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list -- ghc-devs@haskell.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ghc-devs-leave@haskell.org